MILK SUPPLY

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 9, Issue 94, 3 July 1946, Page 5

MILK SUPPLY

LOCAL VENDORS PROSECUTED PRODUCT BELOW STANDARD In the Whakatane Magistrate’s Court last Tuesday, prosecutions were brought against three local vendors of milk, Gilbert Mahy (Ohope), William Teesdale and Gordon Howat, who were each charged with selling milk which failed to comply with the regulation standard. Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., was on the bench. All three accused pleaded guilty and were represented by Mr L. Buddie.

Dealing' with the first case,. Sergeant Farrell stated that on April 19, a sample of milk was taken by the Health Inspector from one of Mahy’s cans, and an analysis carried out. This showed the milk to be below the. standard required. The Health Department stated that it was not a matter of adding water, but one of carelessness. The milk was supposed to be kept stirred up with a plunger, otherwise that at the bottom of the can would not be up to the standard required. The milk was supplied by a local farmer.

For the defendant, Mr Buddie stated that he was not an experienced milkman, and although he was a very busy man, was maintaining the milk supply more as a convenience to residents of the.beach than as a money-making proposition. During the drought he had been forced to travel 10 miles for the milk, and frequently had to make two trips. The sample of milk taken had been from ■ the bottom of the can which had apparently not been stirred up as thoroughly as he had thought. A fine of £2 with costs 25/6 was inflicted. ttf Town Supply The two latter cases were dealt with under the one heading. The Health Inspector, Sergeant Farrell stated, had taken a sample of milk from a can, and under test, this had proved to be below the required standard. There was no suggestion that water had been deliberately added, and the Department was not asking for a heavy penalty. The firm had always had a good reputation.

For the defendants, Mr Buddie stated that they had only recently taken over the business from Mr H. D. Paterson. Teesdale had formerly been one of the main assistants. Ufider the arrangements connected with the transaction, Mr Paterson had recently installed a new modern milking shed, alongside the dairy. Mr Paterson had instructed him to convey that the responsibility for the low test of the* sample taken was entirely his. Apparently the cocks on the milking machine had not been all turned completely when it was being flushed out, and a certain amount of water had been forced through into the first few cans as soon as milking was commenced. Inflicting a fine of £2 with costs 21/3 on each defendant, the Magistrate commented that although the happening was the result of an accident, there was an onus on the supplier to see that his milk fulfilled the tests it was required to undergo.